Attack Risk

March 16, 2015 4:18 PM

18
15

SAN DIEGO—Researchers reported the first evidence that a new class of drugs known to dramatically lower cholesterol may also reduce risk of heart attacks, strokes and other serious consequences of cardiovascular disease.

The reports, from relatively small studies sponsored by Amgen Inc. and by Sanofi SA and its partner Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., found that the drugs cut risk of major cardiovascular events by about half.

Yes it may cut heart attack risks but at what cost? And what are the short and long term side effects? Then again how much attributable risk is lowered? Many years ago a drug named Zomax was heavily marketed. it was a "better" Motrin allegedly and had fewer side effects. It was soon pulled from the market after a number of users died of acute liver failure. There is a reasons for proper drug testing and short cuts are insanely stupid and can cost life and limb

Did you miss the part in the article about Statins being the most lucrative drugs in history? Unfortunately antibiotics don't have those kind of markups.And since drug companies are mostly public stock companies, they would (and should) choose the most profitable drugs to invent and then market.

It is doubtful that these drugs will replace statins, unless an oral form can be developed. The side effects of these MABs on the myelin of brain tissue could be serious over a longer follow-up period. The reports do not address the reversibility of these effects.It would be nice for WSJ reporters to look at animal studies using these MABs which surely preceded the human studies, and would likely have included microscopic and imaging research on mouse or rat brain and nerve tissue. Tell us what was found.We need better drugs for a subset of patients with high LDL. But they need to be safe.

If you buy the story that your body should have dramatically low cholesterol, this drug is probably for you. However, since the cholesterol-heart hypothesis has never been proven to be scientific fact, you might be taking a big risk. Your choice.

The usual suspects are involved..... the end-point measured is not mortal heart attacks but "major heart events." With this type of drug (or any cholesterol-lowering drug) probably no more subjects survive a sudden cardiac arrest which is the cause of death in up to 72% of heart attacks. This sudden-death type heart attack is an electrical storm that is not addressed by anti-cholesterol drugs. For unexplained reasons, placebo causes a high rate of side effects (~60% in some studies) so comparatively it appears the evollocumab drug is relatively safe. The drug companies will likely attempt to gain approval for familial forms of high cholesterol and then expand use. The injected-once-a-month regimen is novel and overcomes patient non-compliance with statin drugs (there are so many side effects with statins the patients won't continue taking them). Never mind the recent study published in the European Heart Journal showing cholesterol was not related to mortality.

One has to be careful with cholesterol. Yes, it can increase blockage in arteries, but it also is an essential part of brain tissue. The mylien sheath on nerves is largely composed of it. There are few drugs that do not have serious side effects in part of the population. Monitoring is always going to be part of the equation. If the cognitive effects are reversible, then that may be all that is needed here.

In my admitted medical ignorance, I try and take as few drugs, pills as possible. I do this because I feel the chances are high there will be a less than desirable side-effect. Even if none are currently known. In another words, there will be a new study out tomorrow, the next day etc.I've been able to manage cholesterol levels thru diet alone. By doing so, I've maintained a healthy weight level and have high energy levels.I realize many people have cholesterol levels which cannot be controlled by diet alone. However, I also know people who take these drugs because they refuse to change bad eating habits.My physician has been great and keeps me in line so to speak. However, for every physician like him, there appears to be others that simply supply the drugs along with the message, "enjoy the cheeseburgers and barbecue"..

Its amazing how the cholesterol hypothesis is blindly reported as fact when its now known that the size of LDL matters more than just the overall cholesterol number. If the drugs work they probably do so because they happen to decrease the small dense LDL as well as LDL in general. Seems like good science reporting would at least mention this rather than blind lockstep adherence to official wisdom. In any case the study size is very small and we are not told how many patients were on placebo or the drug.

Cholesterol is a structural component in cell signaling through lipid rafts. This emerging research in the last decade is altering our thinking about cholesterol's role. These drugs may be a big mistake even worse than statins. Cognitive side effects is a serious warning sign.

These two drugs are monclonal antiboies (proteins) which should need to injected (like insulin), unlike statin oral pills.Because some people have adverse reaction with statin and can not enjoy benefits brought by statin. If proven safe in larger studies, then these two medications can surely help those high risk patients who can not tolerate statin. Expense will not be cheap, but it can provide a good alternative for patients who need to lower cholesterol level fast, so no further damage will occur. Will keep my fingers crossed.